The World According to Monsanto

Who is Monsanto?

(It is safe to say, firstly, that throughout its history, Monsanto has developed chemical products which have eventually become controversial or been banned, including DDT, Agent Orange, Bovine Growth Hormone, and PCBs).

Okay, I have gotten that out of the way. Here we go-

The Monsanto Corporation is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in the United States. Monsanto is better known for Roundup®, a herbicide with the active ingredient glyphosate, and prior to this, Agent Orange. “Coincidentally,” Monsanto is alsothe world’s largest producer of genetically engineered (GE) seeds, accounting for over 90% of the GE seeds planted globally. These seeds have been engineered to resist the company’s Roundup® herbicide. This means that the GMO crops grown from the GE seed are resistant to the poison in the Roundup® herbicide.

rBST, rBGH (Posilac)- developed by Monsanto and now owned by Eli Lilly (makers of our polio vaccine)- the “r” stands for recombinant, which is a genetically modified version of bovine growth hormone, injected into cows to increase milk production (currently being banned in most stores- thank goodness)

Seeds Of Death – Full Movie

History of Monsanto

The Monsanto Corporation was founded in 1901 as an agriculture company producing the artificial sweetener, saccharin. In 1955, Monsanto acquired Lion Oil Company because chemical companies were changing from coal tar to petrochemicals as their starting ingredient for many products. One of the products Lion Oil produced was ammonia to manufacture ammonium nitrate fertilizer, one of the largest chemical fertilizer products in the US. Perfect company to acquire, right!

One year after acquiring Lion Oil, in 1956, Monsanto began producing Randox® and Vegadex® herbicides and in the 1960’s Monsanto introduced the agricultural chemicals Lasso® herbicide, Avadex® and Avadex BW herbicides, Ramrod® herbicide and Rogue® herbicide. During this time, Monsanto was also making Agent Orange for the US government.Back to Top

Agent Orange, Weapon in Vietnam

“More than 40 years ago, 1950-1969, Agent Orange was one of 15 herbicides used by the U.S. military as a defoliant in the Vietnam War to protect and save the lives of U.S. and allied soldiers. It was a unique mixture of two common herbicides (2,4-D and 2,4,5-T ) that had been used separately in the United States since the late 1940s. The government named the mixture “Agent Orange” because of the orange band that was painted on containers of the material.”

“Research on Agent Orange has been conducted for decades and continues today. While a causal connection linking Agent Orange to chronic disease in humans has not been established, some governments have made the decision to provide certain medical benefits to veterans and their families even though there has not been a determination that an individual’s health problem was caused by Agent Orange. In addition, governments and non-governmental humanitarian organizations have increased funding of environmental and healthcare services to help address potential problems that may exist in Vietnam from the use of Agent Orange.” ~Monsanto

So let me get this straight, from 1965 to 1969, the Monsanto Company was producing Agent Orange, claiming there has been no causal relationship between Agent Orange and chronic illness??

P.S. A lawsuit was filed against Monsanto in 1979 claiming the dioxin in Agent Orange has caused permanent damage to hundreds of veterans. Monsanto and seven other manufacturers involved in Agent Orange litigation agree to a $180 million settlement, immediately prior to the beginning of the trial.

(Potentially 500,00 babies born to those affected by Agent Orange)Back to Top

Toxic Herbicide, Roundup®

On December 2, 1970, the United States Environmental Protection Agency was founded. And at this same time, Monsanto claims a scientist, John Franz, formulated an herbicide, one that would decompose into natural products — carbon dioxide, phosphoric acid, and ammonia — and was also found to be safe for humans and wildlife- glyphosate, or better known as Roundup®. This herbicide disrupts the plant’s metabolic process, killing almost every “weed” that emerged from the soil.Back to Top

Toxic Sugar Substitute, Aspartame

In 1985 Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto knew of aspartame’s past, including:

A 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it “might induce brain tumors.”

The FDA banned aspartame and placed it on the known carcinogen list.

January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food and with the help of Donald Rumsfeld (13th Secretary of Defense from 1975-1977) the Chairman of G.D. Searle (1976), the FDA approved aspartame for use.

Sweet Misery

Hormones in Your Dairy, Posilac (rBST, rBGH)

Bovine somatotropin (BST) is a peptide hormone in cows that allows for the production of milk. A biotech company (Genentech) discovered and patented the gene (BST), allowing for its production in a lab, rBST- recombinant bovine somatotropin (growth hormone). Monsanto licensed the patent and turned around and sold it to Eli Lilly (developer of thimerosal) for a cool 300 million. [10]

Cows injected with Posilac may require more therapeutic drug treatment for mastitis and other health problems.

Some cows exhibit injection site reaction up to 4 inches in diameter that remain permanent.

…..stop using Posilac in cows that exhibit injection site swellings that repeatedly open and drain.

Cows injected with Posilac may have more enlarged hocks and disorders of the foot region.

Posilac treatment may reduce hemoglobin and hematocrit values.

“The greatest hazard is the emergence and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria through the food chain, as an iatrogenic effect of treating mastitis in BST cows”(Canada, 1997).

The Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products report for the European Union recommended a ban due to scientific evidence supporting the negative effects on the welfare of dairy cows. The information below was found at the European Union website explaining the scientific evidence used to base the policy ban on Monsanto’s Posilac. Here are their findings and recommendations below and you may also access the full report below. [11]

13. Animal welfare can be assessed in a scientific way and indicators of welfare include those of physiological states, behaviour and health. A proper assessment of the effects of BST on the welfare of dairy cows must be based on the whole range of indicators that are available to measure welfare in these animals. As reviewed in the rest of this report some evidence concerning the welfare of cows treated with BST exists but studies using a wide range of welfare indicators have not been carried out.

14. BST usage increases the risk of clinical mastitis above the risk in non-treated cows. The magnitude of this increase has been variously estimated by meta analyses or large scale studies at 15 to 45%, 23%, 25%, 42% and 79%. Clinical mastitis is often a painful disease. The welfare of cows with mastitis is poor, the extent of poor welfare being dependent on the severity of the condition.

15. The duration of treatment for mastititis in BST treated cows was longer than in non BST treated cows.

16. An increased incidence of foot and leg disorders associated with the long term administration of BST has been described by several authors. In the largest scale study, the number of multiparous cows with foot disorders was increased by a factor of 2.2 and the number of days affected was increased by a factor of 2.1.

17. As a consequence of the nature of the different foot and leg disorders there will be pain and other suffering in these animals. Hence welfare will be seriously and adversely affected as a consequence of the BST treatment.

18. Injection site reactions occur in most cows injected with BST, but not with placebo, and are exacerbated by repeated injections. Studies have shown severe reactions in at least 4% of cows. The pain associated with this problem has not been adequately assessed.

19. There is evidence that BST treatment can adversely affect reproduction. Pregnancy rate dropped from 82 to 73% in multiparous cows and from 90-63% in primiparous cows, 75 gestation length was shortened by 2-4 days and the number of days open increased in primiparous cows. The effects do not carry over after cessation of treatment. The frequency of multiple births which can cause welfare problems, was substantially increased by BST. Failure to conceive is an indicator of poor welfare and multiple births lead to poor welfare.

20. The immuno-stimulatory effects of BST observed experimentally have not been confirmed clinically.

21. Very preliminary results indicate that GH might enhance the production of pathogenic agents that develop intracellularly, such as viruses. However, the importance of this effect for BST treatment and its functional consequences in vivo remain largely unknown.

22. BST treated cows often have a lower then normal body condition at the end of lactation and experience increased “off-feed” periods

23. The incidence of bloat, indigestion and diarrhoea has been shown to increase in BST treated cows.

24. BST lowers the ability to cope with high temperatures which in certain conditions can result in poor welfare.

25. The Post-Approval Monitoring Program study in the USA reported a higher culling rate in multiparous cows treated with BST.

26. BST usage increases the incidence of several disease conditions and hence is likely to increase the usage of veterinary medicines. Increased antimicrobial usage may lead to resistance to antimicrobials with consequences for the health of humans, cattle and other animals. This topic is the subject of a report of another Scientific Committee.

Countries that Currently Ban Posilac (rBST, rBGH)

Monsanto and Cancer Milk – rBST, rBGH

Politicians in Monsanto’s Deep Pockets

“Many Monsanto executives are revolving door seat holders in government entities such as the FDA, and EPA. For instance, Michael Taylor, the deputy commissioner for the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) wrote the guidelines for labeling genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. This hormone is injected into cows to make them produce more milk. The same Michael Taylor at the time was a lawyer for the Monsanto Corporation. Later he became Vice President of Monsanto. Recently President Obama appointed this same man as Senior Advisor to the FDA.

There are dozens of instances where government officials with the authority to write new policy, also work for the Monsanto Corporation. Here are just a few more examples:

Margaret Miller, top Monsanto scientist and also Deputy Director of the FDA in the 1990’ s.

Toby Moffett is a Monsanto consultant and US Congressman.

Dennis DeConcini is Monsanto legal counsel and a US Senator.

Donald Rumsfeld was the previous CEO of Searle (a company that merged with Monsanto). While he held this position he was able to get aspartame legalized. This same man was appointed to Secretary of Defense in 1975 and again in the year 2000.

The Monsanto Corporation was asked by Arthur Anderson, (a consultant that worked with Monsanto in the 1990’ s and later with Enron), to describe their ideal business position in 20 years. Monsanto executives described a world where 100% of the world’s seeds were genetically modified, patented, and owned by them. They then developed a strategy to work backwards from that goal to achieve their mission. Simply put, you would no longer be able to grow your own food without consent from the patent holder, the Monsanto Corporation.” (1)Back to Top